I don't think the video added anything to the discussion. How he can make a wedding for a heterosexual couple and then turn around and say his artistic expression is being infringed upon when he refuses to sell that same wedding cake to a gay couple?

freeman3 wrote:I don't think the video added anything to the discussion. How he can make a wedding for a heterosexual couple and then turn around and say his artistic expression is being infringed upon when he refuses to sell that same wedding cake to a gay couple?

Have a nice evening...too!

Actually, it did help. It described all the types of cakes he has (in the past) refused to make--all of which carried messages contrary to his beliefs. It's the message! It's his artistic vision!

It would NOT be the same cake because it would not be the same message. Your argument is invalid. The government cannot force him to employ his skills and talents to craft a message with which he disagrees. That is the essence of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

You guys are a little too confident after the Missouri case. The majority bought the argument that Missouri was putting a religious institution at a disadvantage merely because they are religious in competing for a government benefit. This is different. You do remember that Justice Kennedy wrote the the gay marriage case, right? No way any of the liberals are voting to allow discrimination against gays so them plus Kennedy=5-4.

freeman3 wrote:You guys are a little too confident after the Missouri case. The majority bought the argument that Missouri was putting a religious institution at a disadvantage merely because they are religious in competing for a government benefit. This is different. You do remember that Justice Kennedy wrote the the gay marriage case, right? No way any of the liberals are voting to allow discrimination against gays so them plus Kennedy=5-4.

Since you have assiduously avoided the actual facts of the case, I'm sticking with my view. This isn't about refusing to sell to homosexuals. It is about refusing to violate his beliefs--as he has demonstrated on many occasions NOT related to homosexuality. He won't even do cakes for bachelor parties.

I think it will be 7-2, BUT they will tailor the opinion so that it is not a broad, sweeping decision.

I am very well aware of the facts of the case. A baker refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple making them feel very badly at a time when they were going to celebrate a high point of their lives. He decided that he would sell the same product for a heterosexual couple that he refused to make for a gay couple. I do not doubt his religious beliefs though I do not think that all or even most Christians would agree that making a wedding cake signifies some kind of approval of gay marriage such that a Christian cannot do it.

"Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied." (Obergefell v Hodges, J. Kennedy) So Justice Kennedy is going to say gays can have a wedding but Christians can feel free to stigmatize gays by refusing to sell the things necessary for a wedding? I think not. "Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right." (Id.)

What this case comes down to is balancing freedom of religion vs. gays' rights to be treated as full and equal members of the community. I don't think this should be a close case. Should a gun seller feel bad if someone purchases a gun from their shop and then that person shoots someone? Under the Christian Baker's analysis if someone buys his product and uses it for something that is wrong then he is somehow involved in it. His involvement is too tangential to be afforded greater recognition than the right of a gay couple not to feel stigmatized and demeaned because a bakery won't make a wedding cake for them.

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right." (Id.)

I am thinking Justice Kennedy is going to write the opinion and hold that a gay couple can have their marriage...and their cake too.

freeman3 wrote:I am very well aware of the facts of the case. A baker refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple making them feel very badly at a time when they were going to celebrate a high point of their lives. He decided that he would sell the same product for a heterosexual couple that he refused to make for a gay couple. I do not doubt his religious beliefs though I do not think that all or even most Christians would agree that making a wedding cake signifies some kind of approval of gay marriage such that a Christian cannot do it.

That is a caricature that is, or should be, beneath you. I've shown ample evidence that he would not sell "the same product" to a heterosexual couple. Please show that I'm wrong.

You can't. Firstly, the evidence to the contrary does not exist. Secondly, you're not willing to put in any effort.

"Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied." (Obergefell v Hodges, J. Kennedy) So Justice Kennedy is going to say gays can have a wedding but Christians can feel free to stigmatize gays by refusing to sell the things necessary for a wedding? I think not. "Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right." (Id.)

I've already demonstrated this is false. I'll not do it again. You'd make a bad justice. You make up your mind without investigating the truth claims of the side you've chosen to believe.

What this case comes down to is balancing freedom of religion vs. gays' rights to be treated as full and equal members of the community. I don't think this should be a close case. Should a gun seller feel bad if someone purchases a gun from their shop and then that person shoots someone? Under the Christian Baker's analysis if someone buys his product and uses it for something that is wrong then he is somehow involved in it. His involvement is too tangential to be afforded greater recognition than the right of a gay couple not to feel stigmatized and demeaned because a bakery won't make a wedding cake for them.

I'm sorry to say this, but this is either ignorant or dishonest. You are so lazy you are going to force me to reiterate the truth.

The baker said he would not use his creative talents to create a cake like they wanted. Innumerable examples of cakes he has refused to make were cited. None of them had anything to do with homosexual marriage, but all had some basis in the Bible. It's not about WHO they are, but about WHAT the event the cake was to COMMEMORATE represented. They weren't getting a blank sheet cake. They were getting a designed wedding cake.

Please stop with the nonsense. You're better than this.

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right." (Id.)

I am thinking Justice Kennedy is going to write the opinion and hold that a gay couple can have their marriage...and their cake too.

Nope, because he will actually listen to the facts of the case--something you have been steadfastly unwilling to do. That's sad.

You note that the case is about balancing rights. Interestingly, you have no problem ending the right to freedom of religion--because that's what your opinion leads to. We can all believe whatever we want--as long as we don't try to live it out.

The homosexuals involved were not harmed. They sued out of spite--plain and simple.

Stop with the personal attacks because you get frustrated by my arguments. You can argue without doing that. You make some silly attacks and then you can't back them up. Where in the case did it say the baker used his talent to create a cake with any gay themes (not saying you argued that but if no gay themes then what does the design have to do with anything)? He is just making some generalized statement that wedding cakes are custom designed and that he uses his artistic talent to do wedding cakes . The facts of the case in the opinion indicate that they never got to the actual design because he flat out refused to bake a case to be used in a same-sex marriage. It is flat out wrong to say that he refused to do the cake like they wanted it done. He just did not want to be involved in making a cake that would be used in a same sex marriage. The facts are clear.

Yeah, I get he'll sell other goods to gay customers. But I am not sure why you think that refusing to sell a wedding cake to gay customers while willing to do so for heterosexual ones is not discrimination. Of course it is! This distinction made between WHO they are and WHAT they are doing is ridiculous. They are two gay customers wanting to get a same-sex marriage and you want to argue that refusing to bake a wedding cake for them is not related to their being gay? No court is going to buy that argument. The only issue is whether said discrimination is outweighed by freedom of religion

freeman3 wrote:Stop with the personal attacks because you get frustrated by my arguments. You can argue without doing that.

I've really tried. However, your arguments have become non-responsive.

You make some silly attacks and then you can't back them up. Where in the case did it say the baker used his talent to create a cake with any gay themes (not saying you argued that but if no gay themes then what does the design have to do with anything)? He is just making some generalized statement that wedding cakes are custom designed and that he uses his artistic talent to do wedding cakes .

Secondly, how about answering this: what sort of wedding cake do you go to a bakery for? If you want a generic crap cake you go to Costco or a local grocer. When you go to a bakery that actually cares, you get the different flavors, but you also get to give great guidance about what the design should be. That's the whole point. The very fact that two men want him to design a "wedding cake" says, "Disregard what you believe in order to make us what we want."

To believe the Constitution demands that, you have to rip out the First Amendment.

Oh, sure. The ACLU is going to be very fair. What side did they take in the Missouri case?

The ACLU is not known as "The Anti-Christian Liberty Union" for nothing. They loath religion, unless it's loopy or Muslim.

That summary was as one-sided as if it had been written by the homosexual couple's lawyers. Oh, maybe that's because they were! In fact, their attorney was James Esseks, who is also the director of the A.C.L.U.’s L.G.B.T.-rights project.

The defendant and the complainants talked for 20 seconds. I doubt there is enough said in those 20 seconds to justify the USSC ruling against the defendant.

The facts of the case in the opinion indicate that they never got to the actual design because he flat out refused to bake a case to be used in a same-sex marriage. It is flat out wrong to say that he refused to do the cake like they wanted it done. He just did not want to be involved in making a cake that would be used in a same sex marriage. The facts are clear.

They could have bought a generic cake and said nothing to him, IF that was the case.

Yeah, I get he'll sell other goods to gay customers. But I am not sure why you think that refusing to sell a wedding cake to gay customers while willing to do so for heterosexual ones is not discrimination. Of course it is! This distinction made between WHO they are and WHAT they are doing is ridiculous. They are two gay customers wanting to get a same-sex marriage and you want to argue that refusing to bake a wedding cake for them is not related to their being gay? No court is going to buy that argument. The only issue is whether said discrimination is outweighed by freedom of religion

I guess we'll see. I like my chances. If the justices want to gut the Bill of Rights, then maybe we don't have any rights.

I encourage you to read the Colorado court of appeals decision which pretty easily disposes of the argument that the Baker did not discriminate because he refused to sell the cake because of conduct and not status. It cited US Supreme Court cases that held that distinction made between status and conduct closely connected are generally inappropriate when determining whether discrimination has occurred.The court found that the ACT of same-sex marriage is closely tied to the STATUS of gay sexual orientation so failure to bake the wedding cake was because of their sexual orientation.

The court also found that the baker's free speech rights were not violated because by merely baking a wedding cake in compliance with public accommodation non-discrimination laws no reasonable person would think the baker was supporting gay marriage but instead that they were just complying with the law. The court did think a case whether there was a particularized message may implicate First Amendment protections but here that was not an issue because they never got to the design.

The court finally held that due to the law being a facially neutral law of general applicability it only had to meet the rational basis test to survive a challenge based on the free exercise of religion. The government almost prevails if the standard is rational basis and the court upheld the law.

freeman3 wrote:I encourage you to read the Colorado court of appeals decision which pretty easily disposes of the argument that the Baker did not discriminate because he refused to sell the cake because of conduct and not status. It cited US Supreme Court cases that held that distinction made between status and conduct closely connected are generally inappropriate when determining whether discrimination has occurred.The court found that the ACT of same-sex marriage is closely tied to the STATUS of gay sexual orientation so failure to bake the wedding cake was because of their sexual orientation.

The court also found that the baker's free speech rights were not violated because by merely baking a wedding cake in compliance with public accommodation non-discrimination laws no reasonable person would think the baker was supporting gay marriage but instead that they were just complying with the law. The court did think a case whether there was a particularized message may implicate First Amendment protections but here that was not an issue because they never got to the design.

The court finally held that due to the law being a facially neutral law of general applicability it only had to meet the rational basis test to survive a challenge based on the free exercise of religion. The government almost prevails if the standard is rational basis and the court upheld the law.

Yes, yes. And, the 4th and 9th Circuits voted against the travel ban. This is why we have the Supreme Court.

Sure. But you have to win through certain analytical pathways. Differenciating status and conduct is one way; figuring out a way to change the rational basis test to a heightened level with regard to the Colorado's discriminating law allegedly posing an undue burden on freedom of religion is another way; and with regard to freedom of expression you're going to have to show a reasonable person would interpret the bakery preparing a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage as a messsge endorsing same-sex marriage.